PASEI vs Drilon

Police Power Phil Association of Service Exporters Inc. vs Franklin Drilon GR 81958  June 30, 1988 Facts: Petitioner Philippine Association of Service Exporters Inc., a firm firm engage engaged d princ principa ipally lly in the recrui recruitm tment ent of male male and female female Filipino workers for overseas employment. Respondents are Franklin Drilon as Secretary of Labor and Employment and Tomas Achacoso as POEA POEA Admini Administr strato ator. r. Petiti Petitione onerr challe challenge nges s the consti constitut tution ional al validity of DOLE Department Order No. 1 regarding the temporary susp su spen ensi sion on of depl deploy oyme ment nt of Fili Filipi pino no dome domest stic ic and and hous househ ehol old d workers. The said order is being questioned for the particularly for the following grounds: the discrimination against males or females; that it applies only to female domestic helpers and not to all Filipino workers; a violation of the right to travel and more importantly an invalid exercise of police power. Issue: Whether or not Department Order No.1 is valid under the Constitution. Held: Yes, the SC said that it is admitted that the assailed order is in the nature of a police measure and police power is in the domain of the legislatur legislature, e, but it does not mean that such an authority authority may not be lawfully delegated as in this case, the Department of Labor and Employment is vested with such authority by the Labor Code. Poli Police ce powe powerr has has been been defi define ned d as the the stat state e auth author orit ity y to enac enactt legislation that may interfere with personal liberty or property in order to promote the general welfare. As a general rule, official acts enjo enjoy y a presum esumed ed vali valid dity ity and in the abse absenc nce e of cle clear and and convin convincin cing g eviden evidence ce to the contra contrary, ry, the presum presumpti ption on logica logically lly stands. The SC also said that it being the caretaker of Constitutional rights, the Court is called upon to protect victims of exploitation and in fulf fulfil illi ling ng that that duty duty it must must su sust stai ain n the the Gove Govern rnme ment nt’s ’s effo effort rts. s. Discrimination in this case is justified. Lastly, the Court understands the impact this order would have on the business of recruitment but the concern of the Government is not to maintain profits of business firms which suffer because of governmental regulation, but rather to provide a decent living to its citizens. Petition is dismissed.